again, don't discuss it here. do it in ipngwg, otherwise spec writers
do not get any comment from you.
>> if we use global unicast,
>> (1) outsiders can transmit you a router renumbering command messages
>To me, that's a non-issue really. You always have to assume they are
>able to do that; either due to spoofing attacks or because one of your
>hosts in the network has been compromised (which is often a near
>trivial thing in a large network). So, relying on site-local
>addressing only gives the illusion of added security, not much more.
yup. i agree with your point.
>> (3) how can we maintain list of routers address?
>I think that's orthogonal problem to the protocol itself. Some piece
>of network management software needs to be written that maintains the
>network addressing plan and uses the protocol to make propogate and
>test updates into the network.
basically, the current draft relies upon the existence of multicast
reachability to all the routers, and the group management of the
multicast address would automatically let you reach all the routers.
router renumbering protocol itself does not try to make a list of
routers.
itojun